• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Nick Redfern Solves Roswell!

"So therfor no reverse-technolodgy has ever taken place?? "

Well, I'd certainly be very interested to see some evidence that it had. The USAF has so far turned up rather lacking in the impressive-wayout-technology stakes.
 
Modern US military aircraft design owes more to back-engineered German WWII designs than anything otherwordly.
 
All that back engineering belief is a mess. Forget all the money, man hours and brain strain involved in these projects. If you don't understand it, cite the aliens. There is nothing involving the speed, manoeverability or capabilities of stealth craft etc that is not within our technological capacity (obvious as that may sound) - there is no need to posit aliens. However, fingers crossed that the next batch of craft we see will knock our socks off! though I still think it will be a testament to human ingenuity rather than little grey men :D
 
Wembely, the question you quoted from me was sarcastic, I wasn't serious. Trust me if I was going to beleive someone when they said that no reverse engineering has taken place, then it certainly wouldn't be this guy.

Nick claims the military played stupid because they at first did not want to take responsibility for the fact that they were doing this awful experiments out in the desert. I beleive thats nonsense. Afterall, spot planes had located the wreckage just 2 days after the initial crash and they were already on it.

Another thing, Nick cannot seem to account for the handfull of people who literally witnessed the crash. People in the area saw a glowing orange fireball slowly decending across the desert sky late that night of the crash. This was multiple people in multiple areas nearby the brazel ranch (I can get names if you like). Coinciding with that, Radars also captured the "craft" downing but moving in a western direction from roswell and several airforce bases at the west coast had put planes on alert that same night because they didnt know what it was.
 
maybe something like the fact that they were aparently doing high altitude tests there according to nicks book could explane such a crash, I don't know, maybe it's an idea to read the book before jumping to conclusions that questions haven't been answered in it.

Lets face it if you are a famous well respected ufologist you're not going to kill the goose that layed the golden egg and risk giving ufology a mighty wack and the wrath of the American government. There are some very serious aligations of what you may expect from a regime like hitlar's or sadam husain's in the book as I understand, it is not a comfortable thought that ones country would have been conducting brutal experiments on deformed kids within living memory. Britain tested nerve chemicals on their own troops in living memory, this sort of thing is not as rare as people in the west may think or hope so it's not exactly unexpected that thease activities would go on in a place like area 51.

Just because Roswell may have been solved acording to the book, it dosen't mean that every single ufo sighting or alien abduction or allededly alien made building has a similarly human explanation. It's only an explanation of one paticular event. Anyway if Nick's solution dose prove to be the ultimate answer surely he's done ufology a massive favour, think how many books and articles get writain about Roswell and rehashing the exact same stuf (nick has almost uniquely undertaken new research) when they could be about new ufo and alien related mysteries.
 
Nick was on "coast to Coast" with George Noorly the other night and what a show!! I can't wait to get me hands on the book!! Nick's last book I read "three men seeking monsters" (with lord flashhearts freinds) was so good!!! Nick's a great fortean dude!! and , he lives in Texas. :D
 
Having just got around to reading Redfern's immature and slapdash book Three Men Seeking Monsters, I'm not sure I'd trust him to investigate my phone bill, never mind one of the most convoluted mysteries of the last hundred years. Still, in light of the current political climate, he's a brave man to raise the uncomfortable spectre of alleged American war crimes, and should be applauded for bringing a theory into the public domain which it appears that other investigators were aware of but judged too hot to handle.
 
Let's all buy a copy and do a book report on another thread in a few weeks! :!: just like in school!!
 
Sorry, I can't consider that Roswell constitutes one of the last century's greatest mysteries. Did something crash - yes; something terrestrially made. The most interesting thing is that this case demonstrates admirably Elizabeth Loftus' ideas about memory being reconstructed and prone to suggestion/expectation. Over the years I've read so much about Roswell and originally I was deeply interested, but with the ever accumulating speculation (and counter speculation) it became in effect a sacred cow;perhaps golden calf, but in any respect, a parody of itself and of ufology in general. Just so that you know: I believe the Universe contains life (other than on Earth) but I am not sure why sooooo many aliens would be coming here - think of the power costs!
PS. You might want to do your own maths (and use your own research figures) but if all the people who claimed to be abducted (over the past 40 years) were actually abducted, I estimate that there would need to be thousands of ships in permenant near orbit...Discuss :D
 
I understand where your coming from ..but that's not the point read Nick's new take on this thing ! Its cool dude!! A whole new door has been open ... :shock:
 
Always willing to keep an open mind...thanks for the link; will get back soon :D
 
i would boil my shoes and eat them before beleving a word this guy says whether or not it make any sense or could be checked..
just why is he so intent on muddying already cloudy water????
 
Cloudy water? :lol: It is more like a thick turkish coffee made thicker with extra thick thickening powder 8)
 
Fortean is being an open minded and if the whim takes you, sceptical. I will read, discuss and analyse many things that I personally don't believe in - I don't allow my personal beliefs to get totally in the way of new evidence or experiences (though they may produce a slant). I'm sorry, but the whole Roswell thing is just a belief strand that hasn't yet died its very soon to be happening natural death......yet, if new evidence comes to light, I would willingly admit to my error and reinvestigate! FORTEAN ENOUGH? :lol:
 
......yet, if new evidence comes to light, I would willingly admit to my error and reinvestigate! FORTEAN ENOUGH?
yes my good buddy!! All I'm asking is "read the book" . :D
 
ruffready said:
......yet, if new evidence comes to light, I would willingly admit to my error and reinvestigate! FORTEAN ENOUGH?
yes my good buddy!! All I'm asking is "read the book" . :D
Good advice, Ruff, and something I must do myself.

I found the interview very interesting, and fairly convincing of the story it tells.

NR comes across as a clear-thinking and - yes! - Fortean researcher.
He only claims to have unearthed a likely explanation of the Roswell crash, and still keeps an open mind on other UFO incidents.

But as the interview suggested (and as this thread has confirmed!) some people will be deeply upset by his conclusions, and antagonistic towards them.

Such is life in these here Fortean hills! :D
 
Just ordered the book now...get to pick it up from Waterstones on Monday...so huzzah :D
I must admit, I never actually get upset...just slightly disapointed that there is no conclusive evidence on anything paranormal...but I live in hope, yet will always apply rationality and the scientific method first: I'm sure most of you realise that this is not paradoxical :D
 
ruffready said:
Let's all buy a copy and do a book report on another thread in a few weeks! :!: just like in school!!

I do quite like this idea - like a Fortean book reading club. Everyone go off and read a specific book (I wonder if the Fortean bookstore could give us any discounts?) and then come back and discuss it - we have a whole range of opinions on things it'd certianly be interesting reading everyone's takes on it.

ruffready said:
......yet, if new evidence comes to light, I would willingly admit to my error and reinvestigate! FORTEAN ENOUGH?
yes my good buddy!! All I'm asking is "read the book" . :D

Amen - we have discussed what it means to be a Fortean a lot of times and there is little actual consensus (which is probably a good thing ;) ) but an overriding priniple is not dismissing things out of hand and not accepting easy answers which leads to us digging into strange reports and, if you have nothing else positive to say about his book, that appears to be what Nick Redfern has done and he has presented a new hypothesis about the Roswell event.

No one is asking you to believe it (in fact no one here has yet gone "By Jove he has it!!") but I suspect he deserves the benefit of the doubt at least until you've read his arguement and the evidence he has.
 
Tin Finger said:
i would boil my shoes and eat them before beleving a word this guy says whether or not it make any sense or could be checked..

Ummm,

why?

surely if something makes sense and can be checked thats a good thing right? not that anyone is saying that you have to belive it, it's best to keep an open mind, even if the book were to contain concrete evidence that there were no ailens involved in roswell then it's still a very meaty conspiricy theory and in my opinion if Nick's version of what happened is true then that's 10 times more interesting or shocking than a UFO with the world's most disapointing looking aliens piloting it (if the roswell autopsy vid is to be belived) crashing on a farm or even duller a weather balloon crashing.

Graylian mentions Nick Redfern's book Three Men Seeking Monsters as if it were a serious bit of highly researched fortean reference... er no, as I understand it it's a humerous romp involving some good fun with his friends before he left the uk for america, peppered with tidbits of information. It's like calling Disney's take on jungle book a wildlife documentary rather than just an entertaining movie with boppy tunes that can get people more interested in the wildlife featured.
Forteania isn't populated by men with white beards, tut-tutting if someone tells a joke or something, from my experience and the people I've met who actully go out in the field and write articles for fortean times, animals and men, other mags and books do like fun and are normal people not some sort of personifacation of ennui (I even write articles in animals and men and I'm on the directorate of the Centre For Fortean Zoology and I like to think that I can crack the odd joke or have fun when i want to).
 
True enough. I just felt that Three Men Seeking Monsters set an all time low in standards of Fortean Research - matched only, perhaps, by the antics of our beloved Beckjord. Redferns research methods seemed to consist solely of:

1) Listen to some geezer spinning tall tales in the pub.

2) After pub closes, stumble around in the woods for a bit imagining that giant hairy hominids hide behind every shadow.

Now, I'm all in favour of investigators actually going out into the field and researching the people and places where strange things are afoot, rather than just collecting newspaper clippings. But compare Redferns book with, say, John Keels Mothman Prophecies. Keels book reads like a eerie psychological thriller with Keel himself as the hero, questioning his own sanity in the midst of a vortex of increasing weirdness. Redferns book reads like the self-indulgent ramblings of a schoolboy on his first trip away from home. We drank loads! We listened to punk music really loud! We stayed up past our bedtime! We heard a few noises in the woods!

Having said which, I agree that Redferns latest book may be a far more worthwhile contribution to the genre.
 
Looking more closely at the interview, it doesn't lokk like he's got anything, just more "someone told me theuy oncw worked somewhere secret and saw something" - no documentation, no actual evidence, just more rumour.

The Japanese balloon stuff has been around for a while, man-carrying Fugos and all (previopusly linked with Roswell), but he doesn't seem to very clued up on the secret US balloon programs of the era, or their UK counterparts. (Curtis Peebles book on the Moby Dick Project is very good on this.) Obscure topics, granted, but essential for this kind of thing. And you'd also have to look at the US military's record in this kind of experimantation and the sort of protocols they were forced to follow. The dodgy stuff tends very much to be in places where US law does not apply.

So it l;ooks very much like he's applyoing another layer of gloss to the X-Files version of the myth, rather than trying to strip away the layers to get at the truth.
 
this guy is most likley still doing his job for the govenment
and would think he would do his best to divert attetion from anything that could constute worth while ufology
the whole jap genetic experiment stuff is the latest atempt aint it.
 
Tin Finger said:
this guy is most likley still doing his job for the govenment
and would think he would do his best to divert attetion from anything that could constute worth while ufology
the whole jap genetic experiment stuff is the latest atempt aint it.


You're thinking of Nick Pope, not Nick Redfern.
 
Gadaffi_Duck could you please back up your words. What makes you think for certain that the crash consisted of something terrestrially made (bad spelling)??? Have you uncovered a new layer or what? Everything I see relating to any fraction of the debrees screams in my face that its origins are outside of earth, or even a slight possibly of an underground race. I see nothing at all that tells me the craft was of terrestrial origin.

ruff tell me what you think of the book once your done. It may be the best book on earth, but I dont like what I see so far. It goes against many facts I know of. You know the best book I could suggest (and I've read nearly a dozen on roswell) would be "The roswell message". Soon I will post a new topic on it, there are some excellent bits of information in there. I special ordered another copy from the UK and I'm re-reading it currently.

I've been to roswell, and I've personally stood on the impact site. uhhh, forgot where I was going with that one... :)
 
Human_84 said:
Gadaffi_Duck could you please back up your words. What makes you think for certain that the crash consisted of something terrestrially made (bad spelling)??? Have you uncovered a new layer or what? Everything I see relating to any fraction of the debrees screams in my face that its origins are outside of earth, or even a slight possibly of an underground race. I see nothing at all that tells me the craft was of terrestrial origin.
Anyone want to lay odds on Gadaffi_Duck countering that you should back up your words? How do you know what extra-terrestrial debris looks like (or indeed sub-terranean debris, which I find quite diverting in itself)?

Facts, which you cite, are IMHO somewhat thin on the ground (pardon the pun) in this case. Most of the books (and I've read a few myself) extrapolate on what little is unequivocally known about it: rancher finds debris, military takes debris, military say "We've got a saucer!", military say "Oh, hang on, no it isn't"... and that's about it on the totally unarguable front. After that it descends into contradiction and conjecture, but by now has such a huge momentum as a legend (note legend, not lie, not fake, but legend, ie possible basis in fact) that conclusive proof one way or the other won't halt the story, much the same as Rendlesham Forest, or the Amityville Horror.

I haven't been to Roswell. I have been to Loch Ness though, but don't feel that it qualifies me to pronounce with any finality on Nessie.
 
Yes - the words 'evidence' and 'Roswell' tend not to sit together all that well...
 
stu neville said:
Anyone want to lay odds on Gadaffi_Duck countering that you should back up your words? How do you know what extra-terrestrial debris looks like (or indeed sub-terranean debris, which I find quite diverting in itself)?

I'll switch over to your reasoning for this next sentence. How do you know that my ideas that the material is/was of extraterrestrial origin are false? Common sense tells anyone that the nature of this debrees wasnt something anyone had exactly seen before at this point in time (and even in present day). Stu neville, the hyrogliphic-like symbols you would say are common? The wieght and physics tendencies of this stuff you'd say were something very normal? Obviously if we didnt make it, then it came from elsewhere. Now, please dont skip thru the rest of this post as I'm not saying that it for certain was material from another planet (what have you), but I AM saying that most aspects of the debrees certainly point to another creator apart from the military (especially given the year was 47); seems indisputable and I've yet to find anything valid which opposes this sentence. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. And whats loch ness have to do with this?
 
Back
Top